<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: THE ALMIGHTY</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/</link>
	<description>OPIATE OF THE ASSES</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:36:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cold cold business &#171; syncwpmu</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-22865</link>
		<dc:creator>cold cold business &#171; syncwpmu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 06:37:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-22865</guid>
		<description>[...] cold&#160;business By Brian Hayes  It&#8217;s just business, Sarah, nothing personal. Media bias is a very real phenomenon, but it isn&#8217;t a political [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] cold&nbsp;business By Brian Hayes  It&#039;s just business, Sarah, nothing personal. Media bias is a very real phenomenon, but it isn&#039;t a political [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cold cold business &#171; Thought Shop</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-22849</link>
		<dc:creator>cold cold business &#171; Thought Shop</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-22849</guid>
		<description>[...] cold&#160;business By Brian Hayes  It&#8217;s just business, Sarah, nothing personal. Media bias is a very real phenomenon, but it isn&#8217;t a political [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] cold&nbsp;business By Brian Hayes  It&#039;s just business, Sarah, nothing personal. Media bias is a very real phenomenon, but it isn&#039;t a political [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Badger3k</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-19821</link>
		<dc:creator>Badger3k</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-19821</guid>
		<description>Considering the amount of porn that the fundies and other conservatives consume, I don&#039;t think that the two sides of Fox are mutually exclusive.  There is a lot of hypocrisy from the &quot;Family Values&quot; (ie Fundamentalist Christian) crowd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Considering the amount of porn that the fundies and other conservatives consume, I don&#039;t think that the two sides of Fox are mutually exclusive.  There is a lot of hypocrisy from the &#034;Family Values&#034; (ie Fundamentalist Christian) crowd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: doxastic</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-19805</link>
		<dc:creator>doxastic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-19805</guid>
		<description>This soothes my materialist soul. Accusations of media bias that conflate late capitalist ideology with political platforms gives me a case of the infinite sads. A for-profit media has explicit incentive to give a platform to high-profile voices that most reliably support corporate interest and consumption-oriented values. If Democrats and Republicans underwent a freaky-friday switch one night, NewsCorp et al would immediately exchange their red ties for blue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This soothes my materialist soul. Accusations of media bias that conflate late capitalist ideology with political platforms gives me a case of the infinite sads. A for-profit media has explicit incentive to give a platform to high-profile voices that most reliably support corporate interest and consumption-oriented values. If Democrats and Republicans underwent a freaky-friday switch one night, NewsCorp et al would immediately exchange their red ties for blue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Da Moose</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-19802</link>
		<dc:creator>Da Moose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-19802</guid>
		<description>I think Mario&#039;s key point which is a great point is the &quot;unpredictable&quot; point which is that the reason that Palin has been portrayed by the main stream political media as an outlier is because they fear her unpredictable behavior if she got elected. Getting back to Ed&#039;s original essay for today, this is why I think his final point fails.  He doesn&#039;t make the connection between Palin the unpredictable political candidate and Palin the product. The connection can be made and is there to be made. Ed&#039;s next essay should incorporate this in order to strengthen the present weak link in his current essay between Iraq war corporatism and political corporatism. The current liberal media establishment are attempting to politically ostrocize her not because they necessarily disllike her politically but because she is creating a market for her product of unpredictability which they, the current media, cannot control for profit. So, having said all of that, who is Palin&#039;s publisher? Harper Collins, a subsidiary of News Corp. This is a battle between News Corp and Viacom-GE-AOL Time Warner. Look who&#039;s trying to buy NBC right now from GE. It&#039;s Comcast--a rival to News Corp. This story begins and ends with the media elites. Ed, keep honing that essay.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Mario&#039;s key point which is a great point is the &#034;unpredictable&#034; point which is that the reason that Palin has been portrayed by the main stream political media as an outlier is because they fear her unpredictable behavior if she got elected. Getting back to Ed&#039;s original essay for today, this is why I think his final point fails.  He doesn&#039;t make the connection between Palin the unpredictable political candidate and Palin the product. The connection can be made and is there to be made. Ed&#039;s next essay should incorporate this in order to strengthen the present weak link in his current essay between Iraq war corporatism and political corporatism. The current liberal media establishment are attempting to politically ostrocize her not because they necessarily disllike her politically but because she is creating a market for her product of unpredictability which they, the current media, cannot control for profit. So, having said all of that, who is Palin&#039;s publisher? Harper Collins, a subsidiary of News Corp. This is a battle between News Corp and Viacom-GE-AOL Time Warner. Look who&#039;s trying to buy NBC right now from GE. It&#039;s Comcast&#8211;a rival to News Corp. This story begins and ends with the media elites. Ed, keep honing that essay.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Desargues</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-19800</link>
		<dc:creator>Desargues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-19800</guid>
		<description>That helps a bit, MG -- putting it in terms of expected product reliability or something analogous. But only a bit, I&#039;m afraid. It still leaves unanswered my original puzzle, and veils it instead with terms like &#039;authoritarianism&#039; and a misty (if I may be allowed the pun) &#039;they.&#039; When I hear that, I feel like I&#039;m reading the postings at the &lt;a&gt;Stiftung Leo Strauss&lt;/a&gt;. You gotta make the &#039;they&#039; more empirical to make me happy. 

Either &#039;they&#039; are a shadowy group of corporate titans (I wonder where they reside) alarmed by populism of all extractions -- but then the media barons must really be understood to be their ideological lackeys, or providers of propaganda channels. Ergo, this is really about what &quot;Wall Street&quot; wants, not the media conglomerates. 

Or &#039;they&#039; are the five or so media families, whose primary worry is sustaining a (probably moribund) business model for their product: &quot;news.&quot; For the last decade or so, they seem to have settled on ginning-up political horse races ad selling manufactured outrage as a way of moving their product, as it were. In that case, why &lt;i&gt;wouldn&#039;t&lt;/i&gt; they be covering La Palin all the time? She sure know how to keep people watching, don&#039;t she? So what is &quot;Wall Street&quot; is made nervous by her unpredictability? &#039;They&#039; can milk her carny show for all it&#039;s worth. Once she stops generating viewership, they&#039;ll move on to other shit. Hey, have you heard that Michelle Obama wore a sleeveless dress at a state reception? Also, I saw that B-Rock bowed to the emperor of Japan. What gives?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That helps a bit, MG &#8212; putting it in terms of expected product reliability or something analogous. But only a bit, I&#039;m afraid. It still leaves unanswered my original puzzle, and veils it instead with terms like &#039;authoritarianism&#039; and a misty (if I may be allowed the pun) &#039;they.&#039; When I hear that, I feel like I&#039;m reading the postings at the <a>Stiftung Leo Strauss</a>. You gotta make the &#039;they&#039; more empirical to make me happy. </p>
<p>Either &#039;they&#039; are a shadowy group of corporate titans (I wonder where they reside) alarmed by populism of all extractions &#8212; but then the media barons must really be understood to be their ideological lackeys, or providers of propaganda channels. Ergo, this is really about what &#034;Wall Street&#034; wants, not the media conglomerates. </p>
<p>Or &#039;they&#039; are the five or so media families, whose primary worry is sustaining a (probably moribund) business model for their product: &#034;news.&#034; For the last decade or so, they seem to have settled on ginning-up political horse races ad selling manufactured outrage as a way of moving their product, as it were. In that case, why <i>wouldn&#039;t</i> they be covering La Palin all the time? She sure know how to keep people watching, don&#039;t she? So what is &#034;Wall Street&#034; is made nervous by her unpredictability? &#039;They&#039; can milk her carny show for all it&#039;s worth. Once she stops generating viewership, they&#039;ll move on to other shit. Hey, have you heard that Michelle Obama wore a sleeveless dress at a state reception? Also, I saw that B-Rock bowed to the emperor of Japan. What gives?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mario Greymist</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-19799</link>
		<dc:creator>Mario Greymist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-19799</guid>
		<description>The open ridicule of Sarah Palin is not contrary to Ed&#039;s point.  First, one must understand the geist of her appeal: populism.  Populists live at almost all points on the right-left political divide (unlike the authoritarian/libertarian divide).  The corporate interests are authoritarian.  They would have us all act, think and believe like everyone else.  After all, it&#039;s easier to make money on crap if we all buy the same crap. If we know there is other crap which we may like better, it is usually easier to convince us the other crap is crappier than the shit we&#039;ve been eating since nixon. 

This is also why Ron Paul&#039;s early power fizzled - the media informed us that he had no chance at the GOP nomination so the fiscal and classic (goldwater style) conservatives found other candidates to support rather than throwing in with the libertarians.  Palin&#039;s populism is a genuine reproduction of what George W Bush faked so well.  Where Bush was an obedient ass-kisser when push came to shove, Palin is genuinely unpredictable.  So while the business interests love her ideas about drilling and what not, they have no interest in seeing her be president, as she would be far too likely to do the &quot;right&quot; (to her way of thinking) thing as opposed to what Wall Street wants her to do.

Faux populism (the down-home talk of a Yale educated Maine boy gone Texas transplant) is fine.  Real populism (someone who would rather resign the governorship than fight partisan political battles on the public teat) is not.  In short, she won&#039;t get on her knees and kiss their ring.  And that&#039;s the only way to be a made man.  (also true in the democratic party)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The open ridicule of Sarah Palin is not contrary to Ed&#039;s point.  First, one must understand the geist of her appeal: populism.  Populists live at almost all points on the right-left political divide (unlike the authoritarian/libertarian divide).  The corporate interests are authoritarian.  They would have us all act, think and believe like everyone else.  After all, it&#039;s easier to make money on crap if we all buy the same crap. If we know there is other crap which we may like better, it is usually easier to convince us the other crap is crappier than the shit we&#039;ve been eating since nixon. </p>
<p>This is also why Ron Paul&#039;s early power fizzled &#8211; the media informed us that he had no chance at the GOP nomination so the fiscal and classic (goldwater style) conservatives found other candidates to support rather than throwing in with the libertarians.  Palin&#039;s populism is a genuine reproduction of what George W Bush faked so well.  Where Bush was an obedient ass-kisser when push came to shove, Palin is genuinely unpredictable.  So while the business interests love her ideas about drilling and what not, they have no interest in seeing her be president, as she would be far too likely to do the &#034;right&#034; (to her way of thinking) thing as opposed to what Wall Street wants her to do.</p>
<p>Faux populism (the down-home talk of a Yale educated Maine boy gone Texas transplant) is fine.  Real populism (someone who would rather resign the governorship than fight partisan political battles on the public teat) is not.  In short, she won&#039;t get on her knees and kiss their ring.  And that&#039;s the only way to be a made man.  (also true in the democratic party)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Da Moose</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-19798</link>
		<dc:creator>Da Moose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:36:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-19798</guid>
		<description>I should add as a footnote that I appreciate the site a lot.  It&#039;s a good site. I like it&#039;s GUI simplicity.  I am sorry I didn&#039;t find it sooner--friend of mine up in NYC keyed me into it after the release of the Palin book review. When I used to live out in Portland OR, I started a blog site called ganjah.com-one of the first blog sites on the web. (now it&#039;s porn I think) Had google incorporated into the site back in 2000 when google used to give you money for people doing searches from the google bot implanted in your site.  Well, it never fully took off cause my writers were too lazy but it was fun at the time.  In that vein, discipline is 80% of writing. The rest is a mixtue of education, skill and a good bottle of scotch.  Keep the content coming.  Somewhere along the way, we&#039;ll derive a path for Republic 2.0 USA. Happy T-Giving.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should add as a footnote that I appreciate the site a lot.  It&#039;s a good site. I like it&#039;s GUI simplicity.  I am sorry I didn&#039;t find it sooner&#8211;friend of mine up in NYC keyed me into it after the release of the Palin book review. When I used to live out in Portland OR, I started a blog site called ganjah.com-one of the first blog sites on the web. (now it&#039;s porn I think) Had google incorporated into the site back in 2000 when google used to give you money for people doing searches from the google bot implanted in your site.  Well, it never fully took off cause my writers were too lazy but it was fun at the time.  In that vein, discipline is 80% of writing. The rest is a mixtue of education, skill and a good bottle of scotch.  Keep the content coming.  Somewhere along the way, we&#039;ll derive a path for Republic 2.0 USA. Happy T-Giving.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Desargues</title>
		<link>http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/25/the-almighty/comment-page-1/#comment-19793</link>
		<dc:creator>Desargues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ginandtacos.com/?p=2803#comment-19793</guid>
		<description>Moose, you sound as terrified of the Elk Pie Lady as only, well, um, a moose would have reason to. ;-) 

I must join Da Moose in objecting to some weakness in your inference, Ed. I&#039;m not sure what exactly you claim drives the media-industrial complex. If it&#039;s just a thirst for ratings-gold, then why kick the Queen of White Rage to the curb? She&#039;s guaranteed to keep everybody watching, whether with delight or in horror. Plus, either they know she has no real chance of winning elections, so why not keep covering her freak show anyway? Or she has a chance in hell, but then why alienate her followers from the only news channel they think they can &#039;trust&#039;? Bashing her openly also risks losing the 23% or so who would never consider voting for Multiple Choice Mitt, Wall Street&#039;s candidate of choice. 

But you also seem to imply that the five media families really have an ideology, beside (or instead of?) a non-partisan desire for ratings. To over-simplify, it&#039;s the political platform of business Republicans -- low corporate taxes, extra-lean regulatory policies, free trade and free capital transfer. (These types used to be socially somewhat liberal, at least re: abortion and gay sex. It seems that, in the Bush Era, they have come to accept dark alliances with the Wackos for the sake of political gains.) But, if that is their political agenda, the Palin situation is a case in which their ideology and commercial interests are at odds. Bashing Palin in order to make room for The Mitt and the Huckster involves taking a hit in the ratings. Also, it risks (P)alienating a lot of mouth-breathers, with the fatal consequence of either (1) driving them to form a third party, hence making the GOP a permanent minority, or (2) having them stay home on the next Nov 4, thus again ensuring defeat for the Republican candidate. 

Plus, instead of bashing her openly, they can always wait for her shtick to fizz out, then offer her a slot on the evening line-up. She&#039;d probably draw bigger crowds than Hannity or the van Susteren woman. It just doesn&#039;t make any good sense to kick the Hockey Mom to the curb.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Moose, you sound as terrified of the Elk Pie Lady as only, well, um, a moose would have reason to. ;-) </p>
<p>I must join Da Moose in objecting to some weakness in your inference, Ed. I&#039;m not sure what exactly you claim drives the media-industrial complex. If it&#039;s just a thirst for ratings-gold, then why kick the Queen of White Rage to the curb? She&#039;s guaranteed to keep everybody watching, whether with delight or in horror. Plus, either they know she has no real chance of winning elections, so why not keep covering her freak show anyway? Or she has a chance in hell, but then why alienate her followers from the only news channel they think they can &#039;trust&#039;? Bashing her openly also risks losing the 23% or so who would never consider voting for Multiple Choice Mitt, Wall Street&#039;s candidate of choice. </p>
<p>But you also seem to imply that the five media families really have an ideology, beside (or instead of?) a non-partisan desire for ratings. To over-simplify, it&#039;s the political platform of business Republicans &#8212; low corporate taxes, extra-lean regulatory policies, free trade and free capital transfer. (These types used to be socially somewhat liberal, at least re: abortion and gay sex. It seems that, in the Bush Era, they have come to accept dark alliances with the Wackos for the sake of political gains.) But, if that is their political agenda, the Palin situation is a case in which their ideology and commercial interests are at odds. Bashing Palin in order to make room for The Mitt and the Huckster involves taking a hit in the ratings. Also, it risks (P)alienating a lot of mouth-breathers, with the fatal consequence of either (1) driving them to form a third party, hence making the GOP a permanent minority, or (2) having them stay home on the next Nov 4, thus again ensuring defeat for the Republican candidate. </p>
<p>Plus, instead of bashing her openly, they can always wait for her shtick to fizz out, then offer her a slot on the evening line-up. She&#039;d probably draw bigger crowds than Hannity or the van Susteren woman. It just doesn&#039;t make any good sense to kick the Hockey Mom to the curb.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

